Enlightened = Schizoid?

[Thomas Knierim]

Now that we have the Genius members on board, I would like to ask this question: Do you believe that sages, arahants, "enlightened beings" typically display behaviour characterised as schizoid by today's medicine? By schizoid I mean belonging into the family of schizoid conditions, i.e. schizoid, schizotypal, schizoaffective and related disorders (you can look up the official DSM-IV and ICD-10 definitions conveniently on www.mentalhealth.com).

What these conditions have in common are pervasive detachment from relationships, lack of interest in social interaction and pleasurable activities, heightened introspection/introversion, and in extreme cases fantasies and delusions (as in the case of schizophrenia, for example). On the surface these appear to be characteristics of “spiritual detachment”, hence the question.

The question has actually a more concrete background. Since David Quinn has been diagnosed with one of these conditions, and since he does not seem to mind to discuss it, I would like to direct this question particularly to him. However, since other members of the Genius forum have been diagnosed with similar conditions, and since the relationship between the masculine and the feminine is such a prominent issue on Genius, the problems of which are expounded at length, the question is directed at all.

The schizoid condition, rather harshly called “disease” by medicine is a condition marked by non-standard behaviour in view of social and romantic relationships. In particular, it is the inability to form and sustain these, or to see any value in them, the lack of interest in sex and pleasure. It is either accompanied by emotional flatness, or -in the case of schizophrenia/schizophreniform/schizoaffective- by extreme emotions.

Now, my questions are: Is schizoid behaviour absent in an “enlightened being”? Is the schizoid state of being an impediment to spiritual development? Are relationships necessary for spiritual development? Does an enlightened teacher need relationship skills for teaching? Isn't love to enlightenment what gravity is to the cosmological formula? The common sense answer to all of these questions would be yes, but obviously the views expressed over at Genius differ.

Cheers, Thomas

[spiritual_emergency]

I'll bite.

I speak from the position of having undergone an acute schizophrenic break -- at least, that's what my experience would be called in this culture and setting. Other cultures and settings have different names: kundalini awakening; shamanistic initiation; the dark night of the soul; mysticism; gnosticism; ego death; alchemy; etc. My break was preceded by multiple losses as accompanied by trauma -- this was what produced the ego collapse. Where my experience differs substantially from that of many others is that ...

• a.) I didn't go to the hospital. Why? Because I didn't know that what I was going through was considered to be psychosis. Whats more, anyone who might have taken me was either dead or too far away to do anything about it.
  
  b.) I have made a full recovery without any hospitals, psychiatrists, formal therapy or medication. No clinician I've spoken with since then has any difficulty in recognizing "psychosis" but some of them do seem a bit baffled by my ability to recover without the holy grails of psychiatric care.

Because I wasn't aware of any other options it seemed that the only way out was through. I went into the experience. It lasted about six weeks. Yes -- it gets weird. Guides appeared. One of them served in the capacity of mentor and was my constant companion. I believe this individual best corresponds with the anima/animus, as identified by Jung. Jung refers to the anima/animus as "the soul image".

Anima: Jung distinguished four broad stages of the anima, analogous to levels of the Eros cult described in the late classical period. He personified them as Eve, Helen, Mary and Sophia.

In the first stage, Eve, the anima is indistinguishable from the personal mother. The man cannot function well without a close tie to a woman. In the second stage, personified in the historical figure of Helen of Troy, the anima is a collective and ideal sexual image ("All is dross that is not Helen"-Marlowe). The third stage, Mary, manifests in religious feelings and a capacity for lasting relationships. In the fourth stage, as Sophia (called Wisdom in the Bible), a man's anima functions as a guide to the inner life, mediating to consciousness the contents of the unconscious. She cooperates in the search for meaning and is the creative muse in an artist's life.*

Animus: Jung described four stages of animus development in a woman. He first appears in dreams and fantasy as the embodiment of physical power, an athlete, muscle man or thug. In the second stage, the animus provides her with initiative and the capacity for planned action. He is behind a woman's desire for independence and a career of her own. In the next [third] stage, the animus is the "word," often personified in dreams as a professor or clergyman. In the fourth stage, the animus is the incarnation of spiritual meaning. On this highest level, like the anima as Sophia, the animus mediates between a woman's conscious mind and the unconscious. In mythology this aspect of the animus appears as Hermes, messenger of the gods; in dreams he is a helpful guide.** [Source]

The above is but part of the reason that I do not hold the opinion of QRS that we should distance ourselves from our personal darkness, from the "unconscious". If we wish to be conscious of it, we're going to have to get intimate with it.

... therefore, it is imperative, both for individual and for social progress, that we learn to acknowledge and integrate our anima or animus, our soul-image.

Your soul-image will lead your conscious ego safely into the unconscious and safely out again. When Theseus needed to penetrate the labyrinth in Crete in order to slay the monstrous Minotaur, the fair Ariadne, with her thread, enabled him to go in and find his way out again. If we follow Jung and translate this story into psychological terms, the labyrinth is a symbol of the unconscious, the monster is the frightening and threatening aspect of whatever in our unconscious has been neglected and has therefore 'gone wild'; the slaying of the monster means 'taming' that wild, unruly force and bringing it under conscious control. The 'slaying' can be accomplished, however, only by love (Ariadne - the feminine) - only by accepting the neglected thing, honouring it and welcoming it into our unconscious. [Source]

I've spent a number of years researching what it was that happened to me and why. During the course of that research I've spoken with a number of other "schizoprenics" and have occasionally been surprised by what emerges from "the far side of madness". I've come to expect certain themes and one of them happens to be grandiosity -- it's very difficult to not have a full frontal encounter with the numinous without benefit of ego barriers and not be affected by it. Typically, this falls away, especially once one realizes that the experience is -- although not exactly common, not exactly uncommon either. Spontaneous visionary states affect from .5 to 1% of the population in any given culture. In situations where the grandiosity persists, this seems to be a form of compensation for the shattering of the ego and the treatment of the same in this culture.

Others can influence one's self perceptions quite dramatically during this time. For example, if someone says, "You're sick! You need to go to the hospital! You're never going to recover without all these drugs!" ... guess what tends to happen? If someone says, "Relax, this has happened to a lot of people and they pulled through okay." ... guess what tends to happen? If someone says, "Wow! You must be a descended master or something!" ... guess what tends to happen?

There were some around me who told me that I was "enlightened now" and I'm glad I didn't know what that was supposed to mean. I had not been following any form of spiritual path previous to that experience. I do know what that label is supposed to mean now and I'm glad that I rejected it. It's confining. If you climb into that box you're going to find yourself twisting and turning, trying to fit the expectations of the role. Dump the box.

I define my own experience as one of "awakening". It's a process, not an end state. I'm very much aware of my humaness and yes -- I do have an ego. I continue to explore spiritual matters according to my own interests and also to educate others about the concept of spiritual emergency where I can.


[Edited to expand Jung's definitions of the anima and animus.]

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Is schizoid behaviour absent in an “enlightened being”?

Not necessarily. Some of the characteristics of an enlightened being may seem schizoid. You listed a few similarities: detachment from relationships, lack of interest in normal activities, and introspection. The similarities end with behaviour, though. An enlightened being would act based on intelligible reasons, and would have complete insight into his condition. Both in my experience, and from some choice words a psychiatrist told me once, the mentally ill lack insight. They do not know they are sick.

An enlightened being would know he is enlightened, and would be able to consider and then logically discount the possibility that he is ill.

Is the schizoid state of being an impediment to spiritual development?

Certainly. The mind is illogical and filled with false beliefs. Sentences are incoherent. They may suffer hallucinations.

However, the experience of mental illness, like a prolonged drug experience, can lead to questions after one is healthy. I, for one, did not develop my obsession with logic and clear thinking until after I recovered from the worst of my illness.

Are relationships necessary for spiritual development?

Without exception, every philosopher was inspired to seek truth because of a relationship. Either they gained respect for philosophy from a sage, or they were disgusted with the thoughtlessness around them. The heights of spiritual development, however, require prolonged solitude (like a monk sequestered in a cell). So, at the lowest level, relationships are necessary. Near the middle, it is necessary to discard them. Then, after that, relationships should be irrelevant: the other will be able to give no new insights to the perfect mind.

Does an enlightened teacher need relationship skills for teaching?

Yes, definitely. But some teachers have a very broad view of what a relationship skill is. Some think that it is good to change based on the student. Some act kindly to everyone. I know that, were I a fully enlightened teacher, I would be an ass. I think that people learn best on their own, when they are recovering from a wounded ego. It works in the same way that you only come up with the come-back two days after someone insults you. The best lessons I have ever taught were explained by the people that my listener went off to sulk to. Now, I may not get "credit" for the teaching, but the lesson was only fully appreciated because I was an *******.

Personally, I think I have excellent relationship skills. I say "I want this person to understand such-and-such", and I use whatever means necessary so that they understand my lesson -- even if it sacrifices their opinion of me.

Isn't love to enlightenment what gravity is to the cosmological formula?

As far as love is an emotion, no. As far as love is directed at any particular person or thing, no. It is not important to have any emotion, or to be attached to anything to be able to be enlightened. In fact, quite the opposite is true.

However, gravity, being part of cosmology, must be a part of the cosmological formula. In the same way, love, being part of reality, must also be a part of enlightenment.

The common sense answer to all of these questions would be yes, but obviously the views expressed over at Genius differ.

Indeed. However, howevermuch I distrust the commonsense answer, I distrust the Genius answer just as much. It just happens that the "Genius" answers (whatever that means, we're quite a diverse bunch) tend to be supported better.

I am no longer a Genius Forum member but I was a member for nearly nine years. I am depressive. I once thought that I was bipolar but I am not. I do not consider depression to be a mental disorder. I have not taken medication for depression for several months and I do not intend to start on it again. I took Zoloft for a while and it served a purpose but it is no longer effective and I have come to prefer being depressed rather than to medicate. I have full realization that so called depression can distort my thinking. That does not mean, however, that my thinking is always distorted. It does mean that I must be aware of the distortion when it occurs. This does not happen often.

I cannot understand why exactly Thomas chooses to highlight the so called mental illnesses of Genius members. From all that I have read here, there are a number of members here who have mental problems, even if they are controlled by whatever means.

Does depression automatically mean that someone is so incapacitated that he cannot be taken seriously? There was no psychology or psychiatry in the days of Buddha or Jesus so they were allowed to be as distorted as they could want with no interference.

Is it your intention, Thomas, to indicate that Genius is a mentally ill forum that has no merit?

If so, what is your motivation in so doing. Forgive me for being blunt but seems like a cheap shot. I know you have great respect for art. Are Van Gogh's paintings less beautiful because he suffered from what might be classified as bipolar or whatever illness now? It is supposed that Michaelangelo was bipolar. If so, are his paintings and sculptures less beautiful?

I am entirely at a loss to understand your motivation here. Kind of seems like a case of someone wanting to point and laugh derisively and I thought someone with such scholarly knowledge as yourself might be above that sort of behavior.

Faizi

[Trevor Salyzyn]

By the way, I am firmly of the belief that what s_e is describing is incredibly dangerous.

Recently, I had to give a history of my case to a social worker, and I was having difficulty remembering the details of my last episode. My mom had to fill in the blanks. I remember being convinced that if I went to sleep, all my insights would disappear and I would die. Those thoughts may have just been justifying an observation I'd had. I didn't sleep. First for days. Then for a week. Then for well over a month, and by this time I was constantly doped up with enough medication, as the doctor said, "to put an elephant to sleep."

Finally, they took me off everything, let my system clear for a few days, and then jammed a needle full of one of the prehistoric medications into my ass. I had stopped sleeping sometime in September, and I believe it was late October or early November when they finally got me to pass out. They decided that the diagnosis they'd given me four years earlier had been wrong: I was bipolar.

Anyway, a week or so later, they performed both a CT scan and MRI, and I saw a neurologist. My doctor concluded that with the amount of medications they used on me, and the amount of time I'd been sleepless, I'd probably suffered some damage (on top of already being bipolar). I have to have another MRI in a couple years to double-check.

A year and a half later, if I miss my evening medication, I still don't sleep. My thoughts speed up too much.

The short of it is this: I checked myself into the hospital when I noticed my sleeping problems (the only two things you can measure yourself as far as mental disorders goes is your sleeping and eating habits. Sudden changes are bad.) If I had been afraid of hospitals (as many people are), and bought into all the myth and bullshit that surrounds the common Hollywood conception of the mentally ill and hospitals, I may have died. I would have stayed awake until my heart gave out.

[spiritual_emergency]

I cannot understand why exactly Thomas chooses to highlight the so called mental illnesses of Genius members. From all that I have read here, there are a number of members here who have mental problems, even if they are controlled by whatever means.

It may well be that Thomas is intending to make a dig or it could be simply that the conversation is on the table so why not explore it? Somewhere out there in cyberland David has a personal profile in which he states he's been diagnosed with a personality disorder. Maybe it's schizoid; maybe it's narcissism; maybe it's something else. I don't know.

I think it's a valid and worthy topic if only because religions are based on the visionary states of their founders: Buddha wrestled with Mara; Christ had to deal with Satan; Moses had an indepth conversation with a burning bush; Rumi considered himself to be mad with love for God; it is believed that St. Theresa's religious raptures may have been epileptic fits. Epilepsy is a neurological disorder which affects the frontal lobes of the brain -- these same lobes seem to play a role in deep states of meditation.

It looks like a potentially meaty conversation to me, regardless of what David is or isn't. The same goes for members (past or present) of the Genius Forum.

[spiritual_emergency]

By the way, I am firmly of the belief that what s_e is describing is incredibly dangerous.

What I am describing is a personal experience. I'm not suggesting that anyone go out and get themselves traumatized to the extent that they produce a collapse of their ego and then wait for a guide to show up who will accompany them on a trip into the burning heart of God. There is no way possible for anyone to "follow" me, which is not to say that others have not had similar experiences. Is it painful? Yes. Is it difficult? Yes. Can it be terrifying? Yes. Is that any reason to halt it? Not necessarily. Visionary experiences have been common among every age of humanity. People managed without hospitals and anti-psychotics because they had no other choice.

If you find hospitals and medication to be helpful, it's because you do. I've spoken with plenty of individuals who felt medication and hospitals were helpful, and plenty more who didn't. In my case, it's a redundant point. What's done, is done.

See also: [*]When The Dream Becomes Real[*]Visionary Experience & Culture[*] Shamanism


[Edited for links.]

[David Quinn]

I have been variously diagnozed with schizoidal and schizotypal personality disorders on account that I take an extreme interest in wisdom. What this essentially means is that my personsality and values differ significantly from the norm. I don't suffer anxiety or depression or have any clinical symptoms. But my obsession with wisdom is apparent.

Thomas wrote:

Is schizoid behaviour absent in an “enlightened being”? Is the schizoid state of being an impediment to spiritual development?

Given the fact that we are living in an extremely deluded society, and given the fact that the enlightened sage has eliminated all of his delusions and effectively become sane, there would be no way for him to escape being lumbered with a "personality disorder". His wisdom, personality and values will always be too different from the norm.

To be frank, being considered "normal" or "functional" or "useful" or a "good citizen" in our deluded society is not an accomplishment. Rather, it is a sign of moral bankruptcy. If you don't have a personality disorder, then there is obviously something wrong with you.


Are relationships necessary for spiritual development? Does an enlightened teacher need relationship skills for teaching? Isn't love to enlightenment what gravity is to the cosmological formula? The common sense answer to all of these questions would be yes, but obviously the views expressed over at Genius differ.

Again, given how deluded our society is, "common sense" answers are of little worth. The "common sense" of the human race is extremely ignorant and limited in scope. It is, in effect, non-sense.

Most people are extremely attached to girlfriends, sex, love, family, gurus, etc, and they are going to throw themselves into relationships without giving it a second thought. However, if it is your goal to transcend all attachments and experience the freedom of the Infinite, then a fundamental conflict of interest with the very notion of relationship immediately arises.

-

[David Quinn]

There seems to be a problem with the server, Thomas. My last post to the Genius Forum thread is not showing up, even though the contents page is saying it is there.

-

[JamesH]

Now that we have the Genius members on board, I would like to ask this question: Do you believe that sages, arahants, "enlightened beings" typically display behaviour characterised as schizoid by today's medicine? By schizoid I mean …pervasive detachment from relationships, lack of interest in social interaction and pleasurable activities, heightened introspection/introversion, and in extreme cases fantasies and delusions (as in the case of schizophrenia, for example). On the surface these appear to be characteristics of “spiritual detachment”, hence the question.

Mighty fine questions, that you should be able to answer yourself.

No doubt I will answer differently than say David would because there is no false mysticism within me.

Basically the answer is yes, all those human actions are more likely to be present in an individual than not. The difference is how the individual values them - if they value such things in terms of herd memes, where conformity of others to your herd-developed game plan is the number one priority then of course this will unsettle the masses that have faith in human games of emotion – war, greed, ego for example, but also the need to distance themsleves from those thast oppose such things - hence automatic negative reactions to individuals .

As an aside, I’m a believer in zero net gain. All the technological advances we have made may be a net gain for the human species (how can one judge this?), but are not necessarily a net gain for individuals on average. I do not believe technology induces increased levels of happiness and contentment, that remain through one’s life. It will for some but for others it does not.

What you have done is automatically assume that all these descriptors of “madness” are negative. That is not the case. Certainly schizophrenia in people tied to the delusions that emotions cause have very difficult lives, and as such it is just to class such instances of schizophrenia as being negative, but really the form of schizophrenia/autism caused by a desire for reality and individualism, bought about by the lessening effect of animal emotions - which by default must be intrinsically harmless. It is mindless emotion that destroys, not living in reality, and this form of autism is not negative except where the herd acts to destroy such individualism.